Oh please, ya'll had home field advantage and like 15,000 years to prepare. That poor performance is totally on you.

Happy Belated Turkey Day.

Speaking of being disrespectful to Native Americans: <- Click the linky emoji

Yeah. The guy should drop using the name Pocahontas when referring to Warren. I'm sure he thinks it's funny inside his own head, but it is pretty cringe worthy, especially in that particular venue. On the flip side though, it's pretty darn offensive to claim Native American heritage when you likely don't have any, or if you do, it's so far removed from any personal history as to be meaningless.

I know for a fact that I'm 1/8th NA, including the nation and tribe my great grandmother was from. I have never in my life included that on any sort of application, census, etc form. I didn't grow up on a Reservation, wasn't taught anything about that part of my heritage (other than that it existed), and I'm about as white as white gets (much like Warren). In my personal opinion, heritage is about history and customs, not just blood lines.

As to Warren's claim that including that info on her college application, employment applications/resume, history when running for office, etc, never helped her career, is at best a bit of blindness on her part, or at worst an outright lie. She might honestly have included it because it's what she was told growing up, not thinking anything more about it than that, but it's (again, at best) very naive to think, in a culture where diversity is encouraged and rewarded (or penalized if not found to be sufficient), that this didn't give her at least a bit of an edge against other similarly qualified applicants at every stage of her life. The fact that no one walked up to her and told her that she got something because of her NA ancestry is beside the point. No one does that. But it certainly has an effect on the decision making process.

Employers (at least at large businesses with enough visibility) will actually encourage employees to include even the tiniest bit of non-European ancestry in their HR paperwork, specifically so they can claim greater diversity in their employment practices. I've never done it, because I think it's dishonest. But to think that this isn't a real thing that schools and employers look for? Head in sand moment there IMO.

As to Turkey day itself? It was good and yummy and all that, but apparently I went into a "cut my freaking hand over and over" phase. One minor nick on a finger. Didn't even notice until the next day. One small cut on my thumb while carving the bird. Enough to bleed, but stopped after 30 seconds or so of pressure and didn't even require a bandaid. One big giant freaking gash in my palm while slicing bread (you know how they say not to cut bread while holding it in your hand? Yeah, they're right). So yeah, I was basically a freaking hot mess over the holiday.

I'd invite myself over to help eat all that yummy food, but the blood sauce is kind of a turn-off.

[:puke:]

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.

On the flip side though, it's pretty darn offensive to claim Native American heritage when you likely don't have any, or if you do, it's so far removed from any personal history as to be meaningless.

Her claim is that her parents and her grandparents told her stories about their heritage, and I find that a **** of a lot less offensive than slinging around a native name as an insult to someone. That's like defending someone calling Rachel Dolezal the N-Word in a room full of African Americans.

Oh, and I actually have my minority card, in case you want to try and tell me which is more offensive.

On the flip side though, it's pretty darn offensive to claim Native American heritage when you likely don't have any, or if you do, it's so far removed from any personal history as to be meaningless.

Her claim is that her parents and her grandparents told her stories about their heritage...

No. Her claim is that she's a Native American. Period. Full stop. She is making the claim that this *is* her heritage, not just that she was told it was. That's a pretty significant difference.

She has made that claim on numerous official paperwork filings she's made over the years. A claim that is backed up by nothing more than "mommy and daddy told me so when I was a child". Most of us figure out that family stories passed down over the generations are often exaggerated, embellished, or just outright made up, sometime around when we become adults. And we refrain from assuming they are true unless we verify them. And we certainly don't put them down on any sort of official paperwork unless we've verified them.

How many people grow up being told about how they're direct descendents of <insert famous historical figure here>? We can't all be descendents of Franklin, Washington, Adams, and the Grand Poohbah, right? Again, some of us noodle this out relatively early in life and refrain from repeating said claims outside the family, because there's a good chance they're not true. Clueless people don't. And then there's people who take advantage of the claim for their own benefit. Like Warren.

Quote:

...and I find that a **** of a lot less offensive than slinging around a native name as an insult to someone.

You're free to make your own determination as to what level of what action equals what level of offense. The reality here is that you have one insult being directed at one person versus that person actually stealing resources allocated to the group she's claiming to be a part of (without, to my knowledge, ever participating in or contributing to the culture she's claiming). One is purely about insult, the other actually has direct socio-economic impact. Silly me, I'd be more upset about the latter than the former. Doubly so since it's a much much bigger issue than just one person. Can you honestly say that no actual NA person, or any minority member, lost a slot in a university, or a job opportunity because she allowed that diversity check box to be checked in her own application? We all know that there are no official quotas for such things, but we also all know that's complete BS and quotas, while not called that anymore, absolutely exist. She took someone else's slot every single time she did that.

Quote:

That's like defending someone calling Rachel Dolezal the N-Word in a room full of African Americans.

Again, you're free to make your own evaluation, but it's not the same IMO. The N-Word is offensive on its own. The name Pocahontas is not (else Disney's got some explaining to do). The insult is about calling Warren the name of an actual real historical Native American to highlight her unfounded claim to that heritage. I agree that it's a tone deaf insult to use, but it would be more equivalent to calling Rachel Dolezal "Harriet Tubman" as a way to highlight how she's co-opted someone else's heritage and history for her own benefit.

Which, you know, is a fair insult to sling. And I fully suspect that if the political orientation of the two were reversed, you'd have a totally different opinion of how insulting it was. Can you honestly say that if a Sarah Palin had for years claimed to be Native American, including filling it on forms and applications, and it turned out that there was no factual base for her claim, and a prominent Democrat started calling her Pocahontas as an insult, you'd be just as offended?

Maybe you would. I can't say. That's for you to decide.

Quote:

Oh, and I actually have my minority card, in case you want to try and tell me which is more offensive.

To you, sure. I'll also point out that I'm not actually making an argument about which is more offensive (and certainly not telling you which *you* should find more offensive). What I'm saying is that if it were me, I'd be more bothered by something that actually has a direct negative effect on my group than something that is merely offensive. I'd rather have hurt feelings than hurt life opportunities. Someone calls me a name and I'm upset. Someone steals from me and I'm *******

When did the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" get turned on its head? Seems like people care more about name calling than actual real harm these days.

On the flip side though, it's pretty darn offensive to claim Native American heritage when you likely don't have any, or if you do, it's so far removed from any personal history as to be meaningless.

Her claim is that her parents and her grandparents told her stories about their heritage...

No. Her claim is that she's a Native American. Period. Full stop. She is making the claim that this *is* her heritage, not just that she was told it was. That's a pretty significant difference.

And who tells you what your heritage is? Is it the people that raise you? Right, so it is from the stories she heard growing up.

Quote:

"No, as I said, these are my family stories. I have lived in a family that has talked about Native Americans, talked about tribes since I had been a little girl," she said. "I still have a picture on my mantel and it is a picture my mother had before that - a picture of my grandfather. And my Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a 1,000 times remarked that he - her father, my Papaw -- had high cheek bones like all of the Indians do. Because that is how she saw it and your mother got those same great cheek bones and I didn't. She that thought was the bad deal she had gotten in life."

gbaji wrote:

A claim that is backed up by nothing more than "mommy and daddy told me so when I was a child". Most of us figure out that family stories passed down over the generations are often exaggerated, embellished, or just outright made up, sometime around when we become adults. And we refrain from assuming they are true unless we verify them. And we certainly don't put them down on any sort of official paperwork unless we've verified them.

Native Americans were not citizens until the 20th century, so record keeping was not very good. It often had to be handed down by word of mouth. In fact, despite the fact that everyone on the rez knew me, and I am related to over half of them, I was not an official member of my tribe until about 3 years ago, because someone in the tribal affairs office found a copy of my grandmothers birth certificate. That gave us proof of what everyone already knew, but because we didnt' have the paper, it was all just stories "Mommy and Daddy told me when I was a child."

Pocahontas Was Kidnapped, Her Husband Was Murdered and She Was Forced to Give Up Her First Child

Quote:

Pocahontas Was Raped While in Captivity and Became Pregnant With Her Second Child

Quote:

When Mattachanna and Uttamattamakin arrived at Jamestown, Pocahontas confided in that she had been raped. Mattaponi sacred oral history is very clear on this: Pocahontas was raped. It is possible that it had been done to her by more than one person and repeatedly. My grandfather and other teachers of Mattaponi oral history said that Pocahontas was raped.

The possibility of being taken captive was a danger to be aware of in Powhatan Society, but rape was not tolerated. Rape in Powhatan Society was virtually unheard of because the punishment for such actions was so severe. Powhatan society did not have prisons. Punishment for wrongful actions often consisted of banishment from the tribe.

Quote:

Though some historians claim Pocahontas and Rolfe married for love, it is not a certainty, as Pocahontas was never allowed to see her family, child or father after being kidnapped.

Again, you're free to make your own evaluation, but it's not the same IMO. The N-Word is offensive on its own. The name Pocahontas is not (else Disney's got some explaining to do).

Actually, calling someone Pocahontas as a reference to their Native American ancestry (or mocking lack thereof in this instance) is offensive in of itself. Referring to Pocahontas as the actual historical figure is not. Just like it would be offensive if I told someone to "take this to Shaka Zulu over there" and pointed at a black guy. It's astounding that you would need this explained to you. I mean, it's honestly baffling. I don't know if you're just trolling at this point or if you're honestly the poster boy for culturally tone-deaf white privilege. You're like a study in Poe's Law.

It's my favorite way to hide important links from unsuspecting people.

gbaji wrote:

Seems like people care more about name calling than actual real harm these days.

Why not stop both?

Not to mention that the name calling is systemic of something larger, which helps propagate the hatred that leads to more actual harm. Treat the cause and the symptom, not just the symptom. Or is that a pre-existing condition, so it isn't covered?

Not to mention that the name calling is systemic of something larger, which helps propagate the hatred that leads to more actual harm. Treat the cause and the symptom, not just the symptom.

But what about the angry white men in this country? They have to have someone to call names and blame for their problems or they might have to face the fact they've failed at life through their own mistakes. If you take away casual racism what do they have left?

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:

Or is that a pre-existing condition, so it isn't covered?

The most short-sighted part of Obamacare was leaving in the exemption for ubiquitous stupidity. It seems it isn't covered still.

"Pocahontas" allows white dudes to be casually racist while also self-congratulatory over how clever they are, all the while pretending to be doing so out of legitimate concern for Native Americans. It's a like a trifecta for these people.

Just like it would be offensive if I told someone to "take this to Shaka Zulu over there" and pointed at a black guy.

It would be offensive to the black guy though, right? Not to Shaka Zulu, the historical figure, or black people in general, or Zulus in general. Which is the point I'm making. And if said "black guy", was really a white guy posing like a black guy, perhaps even laughably so (pretty fly for a white guy, right?), it would be an appropriate insult towards said person, and most black guys would laugh at the joke, and not be at all offended by it.

Having said that, if the group of black guys in the area all told me that they're ok with wanna-be black guy hanging with them, and to knock off the jokes because while he's a joke, he's their joke, I'd respect that and knock it off. Which is essentially the position I take with Trump using the Pocahontas label towards Warren.

Quote:

It's astounding that you would need this explained to you. I mean, it's honestly baffling.

Yeah. Ditto right back at you. You get that you, as a white guy, have no more authority to speak to what is or should be offensive to NAs, than I do (less so, actually). So... Um. Who's sporting white privilege here? Or is it liberal guilt?

Quote:

I don't know if you're just trolling at this point or if you're honestly the poster boy for culturally tone-deaf white privilege.

Or you're failing to see a middle ground there, where one can acknowledge the tone-deafness of using the name Pocahontas as an insult towards Warren, while also acknowledging that Warren's history of identifying herself as NA is *also* offensive and harmful. It's not "pick a side" here. At least, not for me.

And I think you're trying way too hard to find offense in all the wrong directions.

Quote:

You're like a study in Poe's Law.

Which is amusing, given that puts you playing the part of the someone who doesn't get the joke. Not that the law really applies here. I'm not making a joke, or being ironic, or satirical. I'm stating my opinion, that yes, Trump should knock off the Pocahontas label because it makes him look like a tool, but on the flip side (as I freaking said in my first post on this subject), Warren's actions were also pretty darn tone deaf. She, like many white people, adopted a Native American heritage as a means of somehow feeling better about herself, her family history, or whatever. This is a common example of white guilt btw. She is not a member of any tribe. She does not qualify to be a member of any tribe. She can certainly claim that she has NA blood if she wants (as can many people), but not on any sort of official form. Let's recall that she was specifically singled out by the Harvard Law School as a Native American member, so they could claim greater diversity than they actually had. So to suggest that there was no value to her, or the school for her making this claim is ludicrous. Clearly it mattered to them. Clearly, she took advantage of that fact.

And yeah. It's entirely possible that if there were fewer people like Warren claiming such things, so that they still are "white enough" to be accepted, but can be bean counted as a minority, maybe we'd actually get more actual minority presence in such bodies. To me that's a much more harmful act, even if unintended.

Seems like people care more about name calling than actual real harm these days.

Why not stop both?

So... Kinda like saying that Trump should stop using the name Pocahontas as a pejorative towards Warren and guilty white people like Warren should stop co-oping NA heritage? You know, like I said at the very beginning?

"Pocahontas" allows white dudes to be casually racist while also self-congratulatory over how clever they are, all the while pretending to be doing so out of legitimate concern for Native Americans. It's a like a trifecta for these people.

And "I'm part <insert NA tribe name here>" was the 60s/70s version of "I have black friends". It allowed totally white people, who lived totally white lives, to be casually (insensitively) racist while also feeling self-congratulatory over how accepting of diversity they were, all the while pretending to be doing so out of legitimate concern for and association with Native Americans. It's like a trifecta for those people.